Covid-19 News

    Novel risk factors for Coronavirus disease-associated mucormycosis (CAM): a case control study during the outbreak in India


    Novel risk factors for Coronavirus disease-associated mucormycosis (CAM): a case control study during the outbreak in India
    Background The epidemiology of the Coronavirus-disease associated mucormycosis (CAM) syndemic is poorly elucidated. We aimed to identify risk factors that may…
    www.medrxiv.org


    Abstract

    Background The epidemiology of the Coronavirus-disease associated mucormycosis (CAM) syndemic is poorly elucidated. We aimed to identify risk factors that may explain the burden of cases and help develop preventive strategies.


    Methods We performed a case-control study comparing cases diagnosed with CAM and those who had recovered from COVID-19 without developing mucormycosis (controls). Information on comorbidities, glycemic control, and practices related to COVID-19 prevention and treatment was recorded.


    Results 352 patients (152 cases and 200 controls) diagnosed with COVID-19 during April-May 2021 were included. In the CAM group, symptoms of mucormycosis began a mean 18.9 (SD 9.1) days after onset of COVID-19, and predominantly rhino-sinus and orbital involvement was present. All, but one, CAM cases carried conventional risk factors of diabetes and steroid use. On multivariable regression, increased odds of CAM were associated with the presence of diabetes (adjusted OR 3.5, 95%CI 1.1-11), use of systemic steroids (aOR 7.7,95% CI 2.4-24.7), prolonged use of cloth and surgical masks (vs no mask, aOR 6.9, 95%CI 1.5-33.1), and repeated nasopharyngeal swab testing during the COVID-19 illness (aOR 1.6,95% CI 1.2-2.2). Zinc therapy, probably due to its utility in immune function, was found to be protective (aOR 0.05, 95%CI 0.01-0.19). Notably, the requirement of oxygen supplementation or hospitalization did not affect the risk of CAM.


    Conclusion Judicious use of steroids and stringent glycemic control are vital to preventing mucormycosis. Use of clean masks, preference for N95 masks if available, and minimizing swab testing after the diagnosis of COVID-19 may further reduce the incidence of CAM.

    Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day


    Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day
    Double-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness • FDA and WHO caution against its use
    m.jpost.com



    Ivermectin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 1987. The drug’s discoverers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine for its treatment of onchocerciasis, a disease caused by infection with a parasitic roundworm.

    Over the years, it has been used for other indications, including scabies and head lice. Moreover, in the last decade, several clinical studies have started to show its antiviral activity against viruses ranging from HIV and the flu to Zika and West Nile.



    The drug is also extremely economical. A study published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics showed that the cost of ivermectin for other treatments in Bangladesh is around $0.60 to $1.80 for a five-day course. It costs up to $10 a day in Israel, Schwartz said.

    In Schwartz’s study, some 89 eligible volunteers over the age of 18 who were diagnosed with coronavirus and staying in state-run COVID-19 hotels were divided into two groups: 50% received ivermectin, and 50% received a placebo, according to their weight. They were given the pills for three days in a row, an hour before a meal.

    The volunteers were tested using a standard nasopharyngeal swab PCR test with the goal of evaluating whether there was a reduction in viral load by the sixth day – the third day after termination of the treatment. They were swabbed every two days.

    Nearly 72% of volunteers treated with ivermectin tested negative for the virus by day six. In contrast, only 50% of those who received the placebo tested negative.

    IN ADDITION, the study looked at culture viability, meaning how infectious the patients were, and found that only 13% of ivermectin patients were infectious after six days, compared with 50% of the placebo group – almost four times as many.

    “Our study shows first and foremost that ivermectin has antiviral activity,” Schwartz said. “It also shows that there is almost a 100% chance that a person will be noninfectious in four to six days, which could lead to shortening isolation time for these people. This could have a huge economic and social impact.”

    The study appeared on the MedRxiv health-research sharing site. It has not yet been peer reviewed.

    Schwartz said other similar studies – though not all of them conducted to the same double-blind and placebo standards as his – also showed a favorable impact of ivermectin treatment.

    His study did not prove ivermectin was effective as a prophylactic, meaning that it could prevent disease, he cautioned, nor did it show that it reduces the chances of hospitalization. However, other studies have shown such evidence, he added.

    For example, the study published earlier this year in the American Journal of Therapeutics highlighted that “a review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin ‘demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy’ against COVID-19.”

    “Another recent review found that ivermectin reduced deaths by 75%,” the report said.

    BUT IVERMECTIN is not without controversy, and hence, despite the high levels of coronavirus worldwide, neither the FDA nor the World Health Organization have been willing to approve it for use in the fight against the virus.

    Prof. Ya’acov Nahmias, a Hebrew University of Jerusalem researcher, has questioned the safety of the drug.

    “Ivermectin is a chemical therapeutic agent, and it has significant risks associated with it,” he said in a previous interview. “We should be very cautious about using this type of medication to treat a viral disease that the vast majority of the public is going to recover from even without this treatment.”

    During Schwartz’s study, there was not any signal of significant side effects among ivermectin users.

    Only five patients were referred to hospitals, with four of them being in the placebo arm. One ivermectin patient went to the hospital complaining of shortness of breath on the day of recruitment. He continued with the ivermectin treatment and was sent back to the hotel a day later in good condition.

    The FDA said on its website it “received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin.”

    The “FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans,” it said. “Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an antiviral (a drug for treating viruses). Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.”

    The World Health Organization has also recommended against using the drug except in clinical trials.

    IN CONTRAST, Schwartz said he was very disappointed that the WHO did not support any trial to determine whether the drug could be viable.

    Last month, Oxford University announced a large trial on ivermectin effectiveness.

    Schwartz said he became interested in exploring ivermectin about a year ago, “when everyone was looking for a new drug” to treat COVID-19, and a lot of effort was being put into evaluating hydroxychloroquine, so he decided to join the effort.

    “Since ivermectin was on my shelf, since we are using it for tropical diseases, and there were hints it might work, I decided to go for it,” he said.

    Researchers in other places worldwide began looking into the drug at around the same time. But when they started to see positive results, no one wanted to publish them, Schwartz said.

    “There is a lot of opposition,” he said. “We tried to publish it, and it was kicked away by three journals. No one even wanted to hear about it. You have to ask how come when the world is suffering.”

    “This drug will not bring any big economic profits,” and so Big Pharma doesn’t want to deal with it, he said.

    SOME OF the loudest opposition to ivermectin has come from Merck Co., which manufactured the drug in the 1980s. In a public statement about ivermectin on its website in February, it said: “Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to date, our analysis has identified no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

    But Merck has not launched any studies of its own on ivermectin.

    “You would think Merck would be happy to hear that ivermectin might be helpful to corona patients and try to study it, but they are most loudly declaring the drug should not be used,” Schwartz said. “A billion people took it. They gave it to them. It’s a real shame.”

    And not moving forward with ivermectin could potentially extend the time it takes for the world to be able to live alongside the virus, he said.

    “Developing new medications can take years; therefore, identifying existing drugs that can be re-purposed against COVID-19 [and] that already have an established safety profile through decades of use could play a critical role in suppressing or even ending the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” wrote the researchers in the American Journal of Therapeutics. “Using re-purposed medications may be especially important because it could take months, possibly years, for much of the world’s population to get vaccinated, particularly among low- to middle-income populations.”

    CDC Report Finds Growing Risks with COVID-19 Vaccine for Young People but Still Recommends Vaccination


    CDC Report Finds Growing Risks with COVID-19 Vaccine for Young People but Still Recommends Vaccination
    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently issued a report titled “COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Adolescents Aged 12-17—United
    trialsitenews.com


    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently issued a report titled “COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Adolescents Aged 12-17—United States, December 14, 2020—July 16, 2021,” conducted by several authors affiliated with the government agency. The authors inquired into commonly reported safety incidents associated with the vaccination of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, primarily after the second dose of the vaccine. After a “risk-benefit assessment” conducted by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the CDC recommends the ongoing use of the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for all persons aged 12 and above.


    The CDC reviewed the data starting December 14, 2020, through July 16, 2021. They reported a total of 9,246 adverse event reports, with a great majority of them (90.7% of the total cases) deemed “nonserious adverse events.” Thus just under 400 cases (397) of heart inflammation represented 4.3% of the total cases, representing more severe events.


    Emergency Use Authorization for Young People

    On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced an emergency use authorization (EUA) for children 16 and older for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The agency expanded the use to children 12 and up by May 10, 2021.


    The Databases

    CDC VAERS is a passive vaccine safety surveillance system managed by both CDC and FDA that monitors adverse events after vaccination. VAERS accepts reports from anyone, including health care providers, vaccine manufacturers, and members of the public. Previous TrialSite reviews suggested that health care professionals submit about 60% of the reports to date during the vaccination period.


    Under COVID-19 vaccine EUA requirements, health care providers must report certain adverse events after vaccination to VAERS, including death. Signs, symptoms, and diagnostic findings in VAERS reports are assigned Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) preferred terms by VAERS staff members. VAERS reports are classified as serious if any of the following are reported: hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, life-threatening illness, permanent disability, congenital anomaly or birth defect, or death. Reports of serious adverse events receive follow-up to obtain additional information, including medical records, reports of death, death certificates, and autopsy reports if available. CDC physicians reviewed available data for each deceased to form an impression about the cause of death.


    CDC established a voluntary, smartphone-based active safety surveillance system called v-safe to monitor adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination. Adolescents who receive a COVID-19 vaccine can enroll in v-safe, through self-enrollment or as a dependent of a parent or guardian, and receive scheduled text reminders about online health surveys. Health surveys sent in the first week after vaccination include questions about local injection sites, systemic reactions, and health impacts. If a report indicated that medical attention was sought, VAERS staff members contacted the reporter and encouraged the completion of a VAERS report.


    Review of VAERS Data

    The CDC reports that they reviewed 9,246 adverse events for those aged 12 to 17 years who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine during the study period. The authors noted several common conditions and that a total of 8,383 (90.7%) of the VAERS reports were for nonserious events and 863 (9.3%) for serious events, including death. The authors noted that 609 (70.6%) reports of serious events were most frequent among males with a median age of 15.


    When adverse events were reported, the most commonly reported findings among serious conditions included chest pain (56.4%), boosts in troponin levels (41.6%), myocarditis (40.3%), increase c-reactive protein (30.6%), and negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (29.4%). The CDC shares that these findings were commonly associated with a diagnosis of myocarditis, which was listed at 3.3% (397) of all VAERS reports.


    Deaths

    The CDC went on the record that there were 14 reports of death after vaccination. Among those that passed away, four were aged 12 -15, and 10 were aged 16-17 years of age. The CDC declares that physicians employed by the CDC reviewed all death reports. Apparently, the “impressions” in regards to the cause of death included:


    Pulmonary embolism (two)

    Suicide (two)

    Intracranial hemorrhage (two)

    Heart failure (one)

    Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis

    Disseminated Mycobacterium chelone infection (one)

    Unknown or pending further records (six)

    Almost 400 of the children tracked between the ages of 12 and 17 were diagnosed with heart inflammation post-vaccination from the mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine based on the CDC’s study. The CDC didn’t include classifying heart inflammation as part of a category covering adverse reactions during ongoing clinical trials emphasizing safety.


    A total of 14 children died after receiving the mRNA COVD-19 vaccine based on the study results. In addition to the cause of death identified in the paragraphs above, six deaths still do not have a known cause. The CDCs on the record that none of the deaths are directly triggered by heart inflammation.


    CDC Quotes

    An epidemiologist at the CDC and correspondent author, Anne Hause, went on the record that “impressions regarding cause of death did not indicate a pattern suggestive of a causal relationship with vaccination; however, cause of death for some decedents is pending receipt of additional information.” While there are still many study constraints and limitations, Hause shared that “VAERS is a passive surveillance system and is subject to underreporting and reporting biases.” This particular system only incorporated data that used the term “myocarditis.”


    Another Point of View

    As the incidence of heart inflammation materialized by early summer (June), parents expressed growing concern that their children, especially sons, were facing greater risks. However, the CDC advisory committee declared that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines still outweigh the risks and continue to advise that children 12 and up receive the jabs. But given the absolute low risk of death and serious injury to children, the risk-benefit calculus could be changing from the formal CDC position. The CDC is still looking at vaccination to stop COVID-19 transfer, even though the Delta variant reveals that the vaccinated can still transmit the virus.

    Quote from Fm1

    Why is the ongoing mass vaccination experiment driving a rapid evolutionary response of SARS-CoV-2?

    Just a point. Both alpha and delta variants were driven by the need to evade natural immunity and the fact that fitter variants propagate better - before there was any mass vaccination.


    We get variants whatever we do as long as the virus infection rate is high. It is vaccination that can squeeze that low if enough people get vaccinated.

    Quote from Fm1

    The CDC reviewed the data starting December 14, 2020, through July 16, 2021. They reported a total of 9,246 adverse event reports, with a great majority of them (90.7% of the total cases) deemed “nonserious adverse events.” Thus just under 400 cases (397) of heart inflammation represented 4.3% of the total cases, representing more severe events.

    Sigh. Why does TSN do this? You note the gratuitous quotation marks, and the fact that VAERS being a passive unfiltered system you get all the background events counted in the adverse event reports.


    From the CDC report:


    Among 8.9 million adolescents vaccinated during the study period, VAERS reports were received for approximately one per 1,000 vaccinees, and 90% of these reports were for nonserious conditions. Syncope was among the events most commonly reported to VAERS in this age group and is common among adolescents after any vaccination (9). Other conditions associated with vasovagal response to vaccination were also frequently reported. Among the serious reports, myocarditis and other conditions that might be associated with myocarditis were among the most common terms reported; however, these terms did not account for a large proportion of VAERS reports overall. No reports of death to VAERS were determined to be the result of myocarditis. Impressions regarding cause of death did not indicate a pattern suggestive of a causal relationship with vaccination; however, cause of death for some decedents is pending receipt of additional information. ACIP conducted a risk-benefit assessment based in part on the data presented in this report and continues to recommend the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for all persons aged ≥12 years (6). An updated EUA now includes information on myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.



    So: 9 million adolescents, ~400 myocarditis cases, no deaths (and nearly all myocarditis, we know, transient complete recovery within 72 hours). The small number of deaths had no causal link to vaccination that could be determined (background death rate).


    As we suspected: yes myocarditis is an infrequent side effect, no vaccine-induced myocarditis does not cause death.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This statement is wrong! For 2020 Switzerland had no excess mortality! I linked the data - official state site - some weeks ago.


    I wonder why a relevant link is never forthcoming with any of Wyttenbachs grand statements. Is it that the data just doesn’t exist? Or is it that he doesn’t want his weird interpretations of the data to be unpicked and held aloft for all to see? Does anyone even care at this point, or do we just stare like ghouls at a car crash?


    Suffice to say that, like most Wyttenfacts, this unique claim is easily disproven by 5 seconds of googling. Several research groups have come to similar (opposite) conclusions:


    switzerland excess deaths 2020 - Google Suche



    Quote from Fm1

    The WHO recommends ivermectin for Zeke, show me the RCTs. Ivermectin is used as a treatment for HIV


    Oh dear oh dear. The WHO doesn’t recommend ivermectin for Zika. Neither is it used as a treatment for HIV.


    I wonder where exactly you pick up these nonsensical ideas? Jed suggested that the goal of Wyttenbach is to capture weak-minded adherents, in order to form some sort of cult. At first I thought this was a fanciful notion, but… well… these two statements certainly have the nasty whiff of a Wyttenfact about them.





    And why are all you anti-vaxxers getting so annoyed at being called anti-vaxxers? It’s as if antifa members started whinging that they prefer to be known as ‘fascist hesitant’. Wear your convictions with pride!


    And do you want to know the difference between someone who is ‘vaccine hesitant’ and an anti-vaxxer? The former is a little worried about getting their jabs, the latter spends their days sharing dubiously-sourced scare stories on the internet. They say things like “RNA vaccines are gene therapies” and, “Vaccines make you magnetic because of graphene” or, “mRNA alters your DNA” or, “No need to get vaxxed coz i gots me horse drugs”…


    They also often have the gall to moan about the censorship of ideas online, without having the acumen to realise they they are the very people who need protecting from their own gullibility... The internet is a fine place, if you want to learn woodworking, or how to tile your kitchen, but to think that a few months spent copy-pasting propaganda gives you enough knowledge to criticise medical doctors is so beyond the pale, that you probably should have some kind of adult supervision when sat in front of a keyboard.

    Quote from Fm1

    Thomas, I want to explain to you my and only my concerns with anything coming from the CDC and the NIH. 40 years ago when St. Fauci joined the band, the united states had the #1ranked healthcare system in the world. Under Fauci the United States as of today ranks #37 and for the last 20 years ranks last in the industrial world of medical quality.


    I’m also interested to understand the evidence behind the statement that the united states had the #1 ranked healthcare system in the world in 1980.


    It strikes me as bullshit, although in trying to research whether it is true or not, I can’t find anyone who was gathering such data, or making such rankings back then.


    So… I assume either some fox news talking head said it, or that Wyttenfacting has now metastasised beyond patient zero.


    Can you shed any light on this FM1?

    Quote from Fm1

    For more information about how state medical boards and the FSMB respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, visit FSMB’s webpage dedicated to providing resources and knowledge to states and the public about COVID-19.


    What is Misinformation?

    As TrialSite has found, the quest to determine what is, in fact, misinformation may vary depending on the interests behind the interpretation. For example, TrialSite has been censored by social media for simply reporting on ivermectin studies or reporting when a nation, such as Slovakia, accepted the use of ivermectin in that country. That was deemed “misinformation” by Facebook and YouTube even though it was 100% factual.

    Will the state medical boards use the standards set by Facebook and YouTube? Because if they will not, these standards are irrelevant.


    I do not think it is likely the state medical boards will censure a doctor who reports verifiable matters of fact. * Professional organizations usually have a high bar to pass before they censure a licensed member. I think it is unlikely they would censure a doctor for using ivermectin given all the positive publicity and serious interest in it. If they have censured a doctor for something relating to COVID, I think critics here and elsewhere would have to look at the specific of the case carefully before concluding that the board was unfair, biased, or precipitous


    I assume the boards will set their own standards for what constitutes misinformation. They have been setting such standards since modern medicine began. It has always been a violation to sell quack cures. Would you want the boards and the medical profession to abandon these standards for COVID only?


    I expect that from time to time, doctors have been censured for procedures that were later found to be effective. That would be very regrettable, but such things happen from time to time in any profession. We cannot have the medical profession abandon standards and licensing because it might happen again.




    * I doubt Facebook does that either; my guess is that TrialSite is lying about this.

    The US was once a leader for healthcare and education — now it ranks 27th in the world

    The US was once a leader for healthcare and education — now it ranks 27th in the world
    The United States ranked sixth in the world for healthcare and education in 1990, but has since fallen behind its peers. This is partly the result of reduced…
    www.businessinsider.com


    There are many more, I'll get back to you a bit later.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is vaccination that can squeeze that low if enough people get vaccinated.

    Do you mean the fully vaccinated super spreaders from MA??


    Facts:

    - RNA gen therapy does not protect from a CoV-19 delta infection

    - RNA gen therapy produces poorly fitting antibodies against delta

    - RNA gen therapy boosters do not improve the memory B-cell pattern

    - Natural infection produces >10x better fitting antibodies what protects you 40-80x better than the gen therapy


    ==> current pseudo vaccines are only adequate for people at risk. Anybody younger than 65 with no risk factor should avoid the RNA gen therapy and teach himself how to treat CoV-19. Early treatment is key. Get Ivermectin,Zinc,V-D,quercetin. Also Budenosid is good, low risk alternative treatment, same for HCQ+Doxy


    Sinovac is the only true vaccine on the market with no damaging track record.


    Don't kill your child. No healthy child so far did die from CoV-19 but soon more than 100 healthy children will have died from the RNA gen therapy.

    Quote from Fm1

    There are many more, I'll get back to you a bit later.


    Thanks, though when looking please note that there is a difference between America’s “healthcare system” ranking, and “health” ranking.


    The former is what gained the infamous #37 spot in the year 2000, and is based on a number of different factors. The latter is basically only a measure of the average lifespan of a citizen.


    I could not find any data on “healthcare system ranking” before 2000.


    I imagine data on “health / lifespan” ranking is easy to find for whatever year - but this isn’t really measuring how good your healthcare is, as its likely confounded by many other factors, but mainly how many calories are consumed nowadays. Something I assume the NIH is toothless (arf) to prevent in the face of the lobbying of corn (syrup) producers & coca cola.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So: 9 million adolescents, ~400 myocarditis cases, no death

    Our professional liar again. The US military did report 5 deaths/mio.

    Quote from Zeus46

    I wonder why a relevant link is never forthcoming with any of Wyttenbachs grand statements.

    Because you are a child a never read what we post. Go back where you will find the link. Lazy children should shut up and of course and not complain at all about their own problems.


    Here once more for our bottle feeding members...

    Mortality monitoring (MOMO)
    The FSO's mortality monitoring system is designed to detect whether the weekly number of deaths is higher than expected at that time of year. Mortality rates…
    www.experimental.bfs.admin.ch

    Quote from Zeus46

    Thanks, though when looking please note that there is a difference between America’s “healthcare system” ranking, and “health” ranking.

    Children logic... Who else then should be responsible for the US health??? So this is the only rating that counts.


    If you earn 200'000$ a year then the US healthcare system is among the top 3. May be was,.. , as they now killed to many old and wealthy...

    I agree and will look for those distinctions, thanks

    ‘Greatest cover-up of all time’: House GOP presents evidence of COVID-19 origins, Wuhan lab leak
    The top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee said in a report Monday that the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute…
    www.washingtontimes.com


    "The investigating team said several key findings pointed to a leak, including the unexplained removal of a Wuhan Institute of Virology virus database in September 2019, Chinese officials’ expressions of safety concerns and unusually scheduled maintenance at the lab."


    "The authors also noted that several athletes at the Military World Games in Wuhan fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in October 2019, hospitalizations in the region surrounding the lab ticked up the same month, and a People’s Liberation Army bioweapons expert was appointed to head the biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) lab as early as 2019."


    Exclusive: New York Times quashed COVID origins inquiry - The Spectator World
    A top editor at the New York Times instructed Times staffers not to investigate the origins of COVID-19, two Times employees confirmed today
    spectatorworld.com


    "the Times, according to two well-placed sources, refused to investigate the biggest story of our time. Instead, senior editors are alleged to have suppressed efforts to probe the virus’s origins, and the Times led the charge to dismiss any questioning of the WHO’s now-discredited line as conspiracist or even ‘racist’."


    "‘It was considered a conspiracy theory,’ confirms a second Times insider who was in a senior position on a different section at the time, and also proposed an investigation. ‘It was untouchable everywhere. The fact that Trump embraced it, of course, also made it a no-go.’"


    "In the years before COVID-19, revenue from China was an integral part of the Times’s business model. The paper received millions of dollars from Chinese government-controlled outlets, especially China Daily, and published ‘advertorials’ pushing the Chinese government’s line. The Times wasn’t alone in doing this — though few outlets anywhere in the West went all-in, as the Times did in 2012, when it launched a Chinese-language edition and, soon after that, a luxury magazine."

    Just a discussion

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Zeus46

    Wyttenbach you silly old goat, the link you provided contradicts your Wyttenfact!

    Bottle feeded baby: You linked age > 65 where I said there was excess mortality in third wave....2021 is not yet completed...

    Overall there was none for 2020/2021 persons younger than 65 and a very tiny fraction for olders in whole 2020.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.